**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Honorable L. J. Sulak, Chairman Pub110Health Committee The Senate Austin, Texas Dear Slrr

the oonstltutlonalit authorize the State prloeo for anyand the barber business f the Publlo Health is Department upon Thebill would usually performed in

i 26 1969, ad&resaeU to rtmeh hod House Bill Ho.

**-examined**this rubjsot. HouseBill No. 194read as follows : oale of minimum prloes for all have been agree& upon, ltted to the State Beard of Barorganlzecl andrspreaentattre groups of barbers of at least eighty-fire (85) uer oent of the llcenred barbers in any ocunty of this State, the Stats Board of Barber Examiner8 shall have power to epprova or disapprove rush agreements andto declare’,and establish within euoh oounty, by offlolal order, the mlnlmum prloes for any Andy all work or s~~r*Lase usually perfof+med in barber shops.”

c

. .Honorable L. J. Suhk, page 2

Seotlon 4 of Senate Bill Ho.64 reads as follows:

‘The State Board shall have the power to oonduot lnveatIgetIone an6hearings of all oondltiona affecting the barber burineea and to promulgate rules and regulatione flxlng the mlnlaumprloes for anyandall work or serrlcea usually performed in barber buslneasea and shops as will best prote& publio health, pub110welfare andpub110 aafatr, andas will enable barbere to furnish modern andhealthful aenloe andap~lianoea so as to einlmlze the dangers to pub110health Inoldant to such work, taking into oomlderatlon the oonQItIon8, oosts and oonvenlenoes in maintaining aanltary, healthful andolean barber shops andworking oondltlona.” Theemergenoj olauae of House Bill No. 194, Seotlon 16thereof, andthe emergenoy clause of Senate Bill No. 64, Seotlon 21 thereof, are easentlally the same, Seotlon 21 of Senate El11 Ho. 84 reading as follorao

“Thefaot that there Is at present no law regulating mlnlmumprloea of barber shops, andthe faot that a condition exists in the barber ~uetaesa:~6r~.~rofeasIoa whleh Is oreatlng an unfair, demorallzlng an&uneoonomio eompetition andpraotioe 

### In this State, vhiah Is resulting In price outting to the exteet of llmltlng andpreventing barbers from 

### rendering safe andhealthful eervIoe to the publie, an4 la causing to be created anunsanitary oondltlon, oreate anemargenoy andan Imperative pub110neoeaalty that the ilonstltutlonal IUS requiring all bills to be read 

### on three several %byr In eaoh Housebe anbthe same Is hereby suspended, andthat thl6 Act take effeot and be ln foroe from andafter Its passage, and it is so enaoteil.” It warnour opinion that House Bill No. 194was unoonetltutlonal, as stated in our Opinion No. O-850, beoause, first, there wasnot a dleoernlble, aubstantlal, andlogical relation between the meansadopted by the bill ana the legit-**Ronorrble** L. J. Sulak, page 3

IlPate objeota of the exerolae of the pollee power, to-wit, the proteotlon or the Improvement of the oubllo health, safy tr, morale, or general welfare. In oonsaquenoe, the bill did not represent a oonstltutlonal limitation **and** reatrlotlon upon rights otherwise !raranteed by the oonstltutlon. In the aeoond plaoe, 

### House Ill No. 194

### was, in our oolnlon, unoonatltutlonal as anunlawful delegation of leglala.tIve power in rsapaot to tha provlslona makingthe authority of the board to fix prloaa In the barbering profe~aalon dependent upon the afflwatlve action of eighty-rive (85$) per oent of the 

### barbers in apartloular oounty.

Senate Bill No. 64does not oontaln the provIaIona of Rouse Bill Uo. 194vhloh were aubjaot to the aroond orltIoIam mentioned. Thefirst remains.

Thefuwluaantal question arlaing under HouseBill No. 194 

### as to whether the Legislature 

### may, as a legItImate objeot of the exerolae of the polloe power, authorlze the flxlng of prloea In the 

### barber busIneaa, Is the samein respect to Senate Bill No. 64.

Whetherminimumprloea say be fixed br tha State Board of Barber 

### Examlnero **of** Itself, **or** In response to a aubmiaaIon from a

### group of barbers in a oounty of this State, 

### Is Immaterial upon the basis 

### queatlon of whether In anyevent the 11bertIea of anIndIvIdual guaranteed by the Oonatitutlon may be thus ourtailed b;rthe Leglalature In the exercise of the polloe power of the Stats.

In oonaequenoe, lt would 

### appear to be repCtltIotaa **for** us to again dleouaa this aubjeot exhaustively as 

### wa6done In our Opinion No. O-830.

LeglalatIon authorizing the flxlng of prIoaa In the barber business has never bean before the oourts of Texas. Theoourta In other states are not In agreement upon the queatlon. LegIslatIve acts Involving tho fixing **of** prloas in the barber bueInesa have been held unoanatltutIonal and

### ~014la the following aaaes, the oitatlonti of whloh are explanatory of thalr orlglnr

City of nob118 **vs.** Rouse, 235Ala. 622, 1% Southern 206, 111 A.L.R. 349 (Six Judges In agreement, one dIsaentlng.)Honorable L. J. %alak, peg@4

City **of** Nobile vs. Rouse, 27Ala. APP.544, 173 Southern 264 (Twojudges In agreement, one **judge** dIaaentIng).In **20** 

### Xazaa, 22 Cbllf. App. (26) 161, 70 **Pao.** (2d) 962 (Qpinlon **by** full oourt ).

State vs. hoe, 123 **Fle.** 401, 167 Southern SO4 **(Four** judges In agreement, twodIaaentIng).



### Dunosn vs. 

### City of Dee

### Uolnea, 222 Iowa 218, 268 N.W. 547 (Opinion by full oourt).

In the following JurIadIotIona, auahlegIalatlon hambeen held ooaatftutlonal~

Rerrlng vs. 

### Arnold, 16s Okla. 392, 82 080. (2d1 

### QW (Plve judgea bgreaing, three 

### diam4nting, one 

### judge absent). Board e,i Barber Examiners 

### vs. Parker, 190 La. 214, 102 Southern 488 (Onorigin81 hearing, Aot held unoonatitutlanal, four Judges agreeing, three dIaaentIng~ on rehesrlng, Aot held to be aonatltutlonal, five Judgoa bgreelng, 

### twodlaaenting).

**State vs.**  **Faaekaa, $36** 

### Ills. **366, 869** **N.Y. 700,**  **(Four** Judges a@ee!ng, three diaaentIng).

State vs. 

### WoNasters (MInn.1. 285 N.fl. 767. Theo InIon of this **depcrtment upon** the oonatltutIonl llty **of** anr bl 1proposed 

### In the Leglalature la, of 

### oourae, only

P advisory In ohareotar. It daea not have the **for-or** and l ffeot of a Judgmentrenflered by ene of **our** eourta. **It** la **our** oonvIotIon, however, that the statutes oonteaplate, andthe te&lalature desire! our honest and oonaldered Judgment.

It ;r therefore the o?lnlon of this Department that Senste Bill No. 

### 64~18 invalid. There la absent, In our OpinIOn, the neocasory and l ubstentlal relntlon 

### between the methodand mama **~dovtea**by the hot and,the proteotlon of the pub110health **or** general welfare. Aoopy of our Opinion No. O-880 1s enoloaed, Inwhich this qusetion Is exhauatlrely dIsouaaed In relation to House Bill No. 194 at the 46th Leglelsture. Were-afflm the

### Honorable L. J. %alak, ~hrS.xmn, paga b

oorreotn888 

### of thir opmon 

### 0d a80iu0 011~

### opinion to be th08 0enatr Bill 64 ir llkerlro unoonotitrttotml.

APPROVEDAPR 4, 1941

kL,U